15:21:53 <cygri> manu: Let's identify exactly what we are talking about. There have been strong comments from mhausenblas and pfps saying that the relationship between RDF and JSON-LD has to be normatively specified

Manu Sporny: Let's identify exactly what we are talking about. There have been strong comments from mhausenblas and pfps saying that the relationship between RDF and JSON-LD has to be normatively specified←

15:24:43 <manu> cygri: Let's talk about the second point - is JSON-LD only a serialization syntax for an RDF Graph - not quite, somewhat similar to the situation with RDFa

Richard Cyganiak: Let's talk about the second point - is JSON-LD only a serialization syntax for an RDF Graph - not quite, somewhat similar to the situation with RDFa [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←

15:24:45 <Zakim> is xxx here? - reports whether a party named like xxx is present

Zakim IRC Bot: is xxx here? - reports whether a party named like xxx is present←

15:25:41 <manu> cygri: In RDFa it's clear that you have an HTML document, RDFa says that you can recover some of the HTML document as structured data in RDF. In JSON-LD, it's not quite as extreme - in an HTML document, you have lots of other content, but it is effectively the same thing - you can extract information.

Richard Cyganiak: In RDFa it's clear that you have an HTML document, RDFa says that you can recover some of the HTML document as structured data in RDF. In JSON-LD, it's not quite as extreme - in an HTML document, you have lots of other content, but it is effectively the same thing - you can extract information. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←

15:26:09 <manu> cygri: There are things that you can pick up from the JSON document and translate to RDF.

15:30:05 <manu> cygri: I'd like to talk about next steps that we talked about in the JSON-LD call. I'm trying to make the JSON-LD data model very clear. If we look at the JSON-LD spec, there is a section 3.1.

Richard Cyganiak: I'd like to talk about next steps that we talked about in the JSON-LD call. I'm trying to make the JSON-LD data model very clear. If we look at the JSON-LD spec, there is a section 3.1. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←

15:30:37 <manu> cygri: That has a short description of the data model - one point I raised was that it leaves a number of questions open. There are some details that are not spelled out (for whatever reason). I raised an issue against the JSON-LD spec (above).

Richard Cyganiak: That has a short description of the data model - one point I raised was that it leaves a number of questions open. There are some details that are not spelled out (for whatever reason). I raised an issue against the JSON-LD spec (above). [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←

15:31:18 <manu> cygri: I spelled out all of the minor points that are left ambiguous. There is a long discussion there where the designers of JSON-LD responded to that. Based on that, I think we're pretty close to a point where we can say that in all detail, what the JSON-LD data model is.

Richard Cyganiak: I spelled out all of the minor points that are left ambiguous. There is a long discussion there where the designers of JSON-LD responded to that. Based on that, I think we're pretty close to a point where we can say that in all detail, what the JSON-LD data model is. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←

15:31:56 <manu> cygri: Once we have done that, it'll be very easy to say exactly how it maps to the RDF data model. We can point out the small delta between the two data models. I have taken an action to write an appendix to the JSON-LD spec that will spell it out in detail.

Richard Cyganiak: Once we have done that, it'll be very easy to say exactly how it maps to the RDF data model. We can point out the small delta between the two data models. I have taken an action to write an appendix to the JSON-LD spec that will spell it out in detail. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←

15:33:00 <manu> cygri: The plan is that this would be a normative appendix that would spell out these differences. Section 3.1 uses slightly different terminology from RDF Concepts, sometimes a different name or slightly different definition, but there is an appendix that makes these differences really clear and explicit. This will provide a normative distinction between JSON-LD and RDF. That's how we're...

Richard Cyganiak: The plan is that this would be a normative appendix that would spell out these differences. Section 3.1 uses slightly different terminology from RDF Concepts, sometimes a different name or slightly different definition, but there is an appendix that makes these differences really clear and explicit. This will provide a normative distinction between JSON-LD and RDF. That's how we're... [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←

15:33:23 <manu> cygri: With my RDF Concepts editor's hat on, I'd be satisfied if the Appendix is normative and the JSON-LD data model is spelled out in sufficient detail.

Richard Cyganiak: With my RDF Concepts editor's hat on, I'd be satisfied if the Appendix is normative and the JSON-LD data model is spelled out in sufficient detail. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←

15:34:25 <cygri> manu: Yes, this is what we agreed on the JSON-LD call yesterday. Broad agreement in the group to align closely with RDF, while ensuring that the document is understandable to those without enough time to study RDF deeply

Manu Sporny: Yes, this is what we agreed on the JSON-LD call yesterday. Broad agreement in the group to align closely with RDF, while ensuring that the document is understandable to those without enough time to study RDF deeply←

15:34:35 <cygri> ... we've taken a number of actions to make sure that this alignment is happening

... we've taken a number of actions to make sure that this alignment is happening←

15:45:24 <manu> cygri: As far as I understand, in a JSON-LD graph, you can have a free-floating node. You can just have an IRI that exists as an independent node. You can't have a node that doesn't at least have one statement.

Richard Cyganiak: As far as I understand, in a JSON-LD graph, you can have a free-floating node. You can just have an IRI that exists as an independent node. You can't have a node that doesn't at least have one statement. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←

15:45:40 <manu> cygri: That's one of these subtle differences. Is there a reasonable technical reason that we have these differences?

Richard Cyganiak: That's one of these subtle differences. Is there a reasonable technical reason that we have these differences? [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←

15:46:16 <manu> cygri: If there is a reason we have it, wouldn't it be more dangerous to lean too heavily on RDF Concepts that could create more confusion than just saying that they're two indepdendent data models.

Richard Cyganiak: If there is a reason we have it, wouldn't it be more dangerous to lean too heavily on RDF Concepts that could create more confusion than just saying that they're two indepdendent data models. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←

15:46:36 <patH> manu, two points. (1) where there are genuine technical overloadings of meaning then of course you might need to use different terms, and "property" might be one. (2) Richard is rewriting RDF Concepts to keep it as brief and snappy as possible, so i tmight serve to be a barrier against the dreaded model theory for your readers.

Patrick Hayes: manu, two points. (1) where there are genuine technical overloadings of meaning then of course you might need to use different terms, and "property" might be one. (2) Richard is rewriting RDF Concepts to keep it as brief and snappy as possible, so i tmight serve to be a barrier against the dreaded model theory for your readers.←

15:46:43 <manu> cygri: I think it will be useful to go through the differences in the data model, discuss what they are and how the mapping to RDF happens.

Richard Cyganiak: I think it will be useful to go through the differences in the data model, discuss what they are and how the mapping to RDF happens. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←

15:47:08 <cygri> guus: I think this would be one of the most useful things to do at the F2F, might solve many of the issues

Guus Schreiber: I think this would be one of the most useful things to do at the F2F, might solve many of the issues←

15:48:49 <cygri> manu: I think it's useful to discuss the delta, but am afraid of getting into long debates of the JSON-LD data model. It doesn't help if the RDF-WG talks in detail about the JSON-LD data model as this won't have a clear result

Manu Sporny: I think it's useful to discuss the delta, but am afraid of getting into long debates of the JSON-LD data model. It doesn't help if the RDF-WG talks in detail about the JSON-LD data model as this won't have a clear result←

15:49:11 <cygri> guus: The discussion can be limited. Some discussion might be necessary to get the endorsement of this group

Guus Schreiber: The discussion can be limited. Some discussion might be necessary to get the endorsement of this group←

15:51:43 <manu> PROPOSED PROPOSAL: Add a normative section to the JSON-LD Syntax specification outlining how the JSON-LD data model aligns with the RDF data model described in RDF Concepts.

Manu Sporny: PROPOSED PROPOSAL: Add a normative section to the JSON-LD Syntax specification outlining how the JSON-LD data model aligns with the RDF data model described in RDF Concepts.←

15:51:45 <manu> PROPOSED PROPOSAL: If necessary, add precision to the JSON-LD data model such that it is crystal clear as to how the JSON-LD data model maps to the RDF data model.

Manu Sporny: PROPOSED PROPOSAL: If necessary, add precision to the JSON-LD data model such that it is crystal clear as to how the JSON-LD data model maps to the RDF data model.←

15:52:21 <manu> cygri: We shouldn't do resolutions on statements of fact... we should do it on things we intend to do.

Richard Cyganiak: We shouldn't do resolutions on statements of fact... we should do it on things we intend to do. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←

15:53:44 <patH> Should JSON-LD provide a way to recognize whether a given serialization is or is not legal RDF (other than translating it into RDF nad back again, that is) ?? NOt sure how to word this.

Patrick Hayes: Should JSON-LD provide a way to recognize whether a given serialization is or is not legal RDF (other than translating it into RDF nad back again, that is) ?? NOt sure how to word this.←

4. Graphs

16:05:36 <cygri> guus: We had three proposals last week, and resolved one. Do we want to continue with the other two?

Guus Schreiber: We had three proposals last week, and resolved one. Do we want to continue with the other two?←

16:06:21 <cygri> ... I think this captured the outcome of last week's discussion: The WG makes no normative statement on whether implementations that parse and store information from TriG documents MAY or MAY NOT turn the TriG default graph into a named graph with a name chosen in an implementation-dependent way.

... I think this captured the outcome of last week's discussion: The WG makes no normative statement on whether implementations that parse and store information from TriG documents MAY or MAY NOT turn the TriG default graph into a named graph with a name chosen in an implementation-dependent way.←

16:07:00 <cygri> ... is this a correct formulation? and is it useful to capture this as a resolution?

... is this a correct formulation? and is it useful to capture this as a resolution?←

16:10:08 <patH> I think Guus wants a resolution handy to stop further discussion, Think of it as a Chair's light-saber.

Patrick Hayes: I think Guus wants a resolution handy to stop further discussion, Think of it as a Chair's light-saber.←

16:10:16 <davidwood> Fundamentally, this is a question of interoperability. No implementor will care whether their own interpretation of the spec is "correct" until they try to interoperate with others.

David Wood: Fundamentally, this is a question of interoperability. No implementor will care whether their own interpretation of the spec is "correct" until they try to interoperate with others.←

16:12:15 <cygri> ... so unless some really new information comes up, chairs can shut down discussion on this particualr issue

... so unless some really new information comes up, chairs can shut down discussion on this particualr issue←

16:12:38 <cygri> PROPOSED: The WG makes no normative statement on whether implementations that parse and store information from TriG documents MAY or MAY NOT turn the TriG default graph into a named graph with a name chosen in an implementation-dependent way.

PROPOSED: The WG makes no normative statement on whether implementations that parse and store information from TriG documents MAY or MAY NOT turn the TriG default graph into a named graph with a name chosen in an implementation-dependent way.←

16:15:29 <MacTed> cygri's suggestion comes down to "continue the discussion until we figure out whether MAY or MAY NOT is what we'll say"

Ted Thibodeau: cygri's suggestion comes down to "continue the discussion until we figure out whether MAY or MAY NOT is what we'll say"←

16:15:35 <cygri> AndyS: I'm worried that this permits giving a name to the default graph and ...? (scribe fail)

Andy Seaborne: I'm worried that this permits giving a name to the default graph and ...? (scribe fail)←

16:16:03 <davidwood> PROPOSED: The RDF WG recognises that implementations may have more than one local interpretation of a TriG default graph and makes no normative statement on how implementations that parse and store information from TriG documents handle the TriG default graph.

PROPOSED: The RDF WG recognises that implementations may have more than one local interpretation of a TriG default graph and makes no normative statement on how implementations that parse and store information from TriG documents handle the TriG default graph.←

16:16:12 <Arnaud> how about something like: whether implementations that parse and store information from TriG documents turn the TriG default graph into a named graph is implementation dependent?

Arnaud Le Hors: how about something like: whether implementations that parse and store information from TriG documents turn the TriG default graph into a named graph is implementation dependent?←